From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 29 20:28:08 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A7616A46C for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 20:28:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from staalebk@ifi.uio.no) Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0804713C48A for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 20:28:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from staalebk@ifi.uio.no) Received: from eschew.pusen.org (unknown [193.69.145.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A582D12C6B1; Tue, 29 May 2007 22:28:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chiller by eschew.pusen.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Ht8IX-0002l2-R3; Tue, 29 May 2007 22:28:05 +0200 Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:28:05 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E5le?= Kristoffersen To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20070529202805.GB16557@eschew.pusen.org> References: <46487565.40205@tychl.net> <20070528231218.GA14746@eschew.pusen.org> <20070529185456.GA48827@rot13.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20070529185456.GA48827@rot13.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:28:08 -0000 On 2007-05-29 at 14:54, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:12:18AM +0200, St?le Kristoffersen wrote: > > On 2007-05-14 at 10:42, Nick Gustas wrote: > > > I see the same behavior that St?le is seeing, I can "fix" it by setting > > > vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable="1" in loader.conf. I'm assuming something in > > > the prefetch code isn't quite right? > > > > Ah, this _greatly_ improved the usability of my fileserver! Thanks for the > > tip :) > > How does filesystem performance change? I thought ZFS needs to do > prefetching to improve read performance. How the performance changed was dramatically, it went from beeing about useless for doing anything other than watching one stream from it, to tackle several concurrent streams without problems. I whish prefetching would work correctly, it should improve performance even more. -- Ståle Kristoffersen staalebk@ifi.uio.no